Why? What was the motive?

[whitywendy]

Murder though, by Darlie or the invisible intruder, wouldn't be accidental though, would it?

Oopps I forgot, SOMEONE CAME IN HERE AND INTENTIONAL DID THIS DARREN.:doh:.

Actually I am going to look at my policies and see how that would be considered. I am thinking, the AD benefit would come into play as long as the insured didn't die by natural causes, disease, or suicide.

 

[whitywendy]

Accidental Death Benefit: benefits paid if a Loss results directly from injury, independent of all other causes and such Loss occurs within 365 days after the date of the accident causing the injury.
What types of injuries are excluded from coverage? sickness, disease, any medical treatment for above, any infection, except a pus-forming infection of an accidental cut or wound; war or any act of war, whether war is declared or not, any injury received while in the armed service of a country, any intentionally self-inflicted injury, suicide, or suicide attempt, whether sane or insane; taking drugs, sedatives, narcotics, barbiturates, amphetamines or hallucinogens unless prescribed for or administered by a licensed physician or the injured person's intoxication. Please note I got this info from my Hartford Life Insurance Policy Plan.

I do not think any of the above exclusions apply to the boys, Darlie yes, boys no. Didn't have anything in regards to a parent (policy holder) "accidentally" killing their kids.

Now a couple of years ago I had to file a benefit claim on behalf of an employee who's spouse was murdered. And the AD benefit was paid in combination with the regular life policy benefit.

 

[JMO8778]

That's one of the things I've thought of. Darlie had been sleeping downstairs for five nights in a row prior to the night of the murders but the boys were only there that one night..the night they were killed.

Maybe Darin told her to hoof it and don't think you're taking the boys....

good points.I tend to think she'd at least given it some thought earlier,bc in the video she looks pretty happy,like she's gotten away with it all...if it had been a spur of the moment kind of thing,I have to wonder if she'd acted differently,esp. had it been done just in anger,and for no other reason.
But then again,she doesn't seem quite right anyway,so who knows.

 

[JMO8778]

I was thinking about the insurance policies on the boys. I have never been able to agree with the posters who believed it was about needing money. However, since I'm in the process of renewing our employee insurance policies something dawned on me. I wonder if the life insurance policies had any Accidental Death benefit added to it. Most do. I am not expert in the Life Insurance Policy but having had to deal with these policies through my job for some 8 years, I have noticed that most of the policies have this "benefit" attached to the policy. Which in case of accidental death the benefit amount paid out is doubled. So therefore instead of the $10,000 it would of been $20,000. She needed $10,000 (which did not seem like alot of money to kill your kids over) but hey $20,000 would even give her some extra spending money. Sick Sick Sick JMOP

wow..good catch ! it doesn't seem an intruder murder is excluded.

 

[JMO8778]

The journal entry was written in early May about a month before the murders. I think that the motive is all tied up in all those things. I hate to even use the word as there really is no motive in a domestic homicide. Unless you live within the family and know the dynamics, how can you know why someone kills their kids.

It's documented now that they had a huge fight that night..now that Darin is being thrown under the bus.

Yes, I do think Darin was the catalyst that night. Listen to her voice when she says "someone just walked in here and intentionally did it Darin"...listen to the anger in her voice. I think their marriage was failing, I think they were on the verge of losing their lavish lifestyle and she couldn't handle it. I think she was overwhelmed and had been for a long time. She was depressed and unstable and her emotional detachment from the boys was becoming apparent. She didn't care what they did or where they went as long as they weren't inside bugging her. She was also using strong diet pills that can skew your thinking when you're depressed...I believe they made her edgy and they are why she couldn't sleep..nothing to do with the baby.

Something happened during that fight with Darin that night that started her in motion. Money, revenge..yep could be all those things.

good points,esp. regarding Darin.I first saw this case on Unsolved Mysteries,and they tried to make it seem Darlie was innocent,(to a large degree,although LE was on there talking about the case as well),but to me it seemed Darin was afraid and was hiding something...like there was a lot he wasn't saying.Not that he actually committed the murders,but that he was afraid he would be implicated in starting it all,was the feeling I got out of it.
You can buy or rent the old UM shows,I know netflix for one has them,if anyone would like to see what I mean.(if I can't mention a site then pls delete,thx).

 

[whitywendy]

wow..good catch ! it doesn't seem an intruder murder is excluded.

Yes, exactly, I looked it up.

In regards to what you said about her looking as though she had gotten away with something in the video, I never thought about it that way but imo you are so right.

 

[Rino]

Isn't it funny how she goes into such detail with insignificant "stuff" but just brushes over the actual facts/events of the night. I was just at the JFD site trying to find a good starting place for Nicola to help her understand why we believe she is guilty but that is impossible for me. I read so much I just don't remember where everything is.

I know what you mean...from JFD site http://www.justicefordarlie.net/transcripts/volumes/vol-44.php#2

Q. Well, if you had woken up, and some
7 man is stabbing your children, you would have tried to
8 stop him, wouldn't you?
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. Okay. But you have no memory of any
11 of that?
12 A. No, sir.
13 Q. You must have been beaten first,
14 wouldn't you say?
15 A. Sir, I have no idea. I have sat for
16 seven months, and tried to think of every possible thing
17 I could think of what this man did to me.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. I don't remember.
20 Q. You don't know if you were stabbed
21 first, or you were beaten on the arms first?
22 A. I have no idea. I don't remember.
23 Q. And what is the description that you
24 remember, the best description that you have of this man?
25 A. It's not much, he was a taller man,

1 with dark hair.
2 Q. Okay. Let's start with that. How
3 tall was he?
4 A. I cannot give you an exact -- I mean,
5 I can just tell you that he was above -- I would think
6 above six foot.
7 Q. Okay. Above six foot?
8 A. Yes, sir.


She forgets the attack but can remember the attacker....hmmmm

What also bothers me in this line of questioning is this response- "I have sat for seven months, and tried to think of every possible thing
I could think of what this man did to me." - DID TO ME. Not to my kids, or even us, but single mindedely "me". Sure, she sat around thinking of way after way to manufacture evidence of the intruder who did this to her.

 

[whitywendy]

I know what you mean...from JFD site

She forgets the attack but can remember the attacker....hmmmm

What also bothers me in this line of questioning is this response- "I have sat for seven months, and tried to think of every possible thing
I could think of what this man did to me." - DID TO ME. Not to my kids, or even us, but single mindedely "me". Sure, she sat around thinking of way after way to manufacture evidence of the intruder who did this to her.

Oh wow, I completed missed that. Hey, do you think she was actually referring to Darren?

 

[cami]

Oh wow, I completed missed that. Hey, do you think she was actually referring to Darren?

I think when she initially had to describe the intruder..she used Darin. Think of the description she gave. She did it unconsciously.

 

[whitywendy]

I think when she initially had to describe the intruder..she used Darin. Think of the description she gave. She did it unconsciously.

I always thought that she was describing him, but she was stead fast in stating IS WASN"T HIM that she saw leaving through the garage.

 

[nicola]

Barbara Davis shouldn't be the sole reason you believe Darlie innocent. She is an author - and will do whatever it takes to make herself famous and rich. If that means trying to draw out more publicity for yourself and your book - so be it.

Barbara Davies is NOT the sole reason that I believe in Darlies innocence, (as I stated), if you read all of my post you would know this. What I was trying to say is that she had sat through the trial everyday and she belived wholeheartedly in Darlies guilt until, she saw all evidence. I stated myself that it could be a publicity stunt.
What you are saying bout juror makes sense although he must have doubted his decision at the time to change his mind now.

 

[nicola]

Hi Nicola,
An intruder would have left more than one smudged bloody fingerprint. The thing is, they focus on one little thing. If an intruder had bloody hands, where is it in the rest of the house? Just ONE fingerprint? Highly unlikely, but they'll keep pushing it, it's all they have.

A fingerprint in blood id not 'a little thing' especially if it turns out that it is not Darlies. Just because there is only one fingerprint in blood does not make it unlikely, it is not unheard of for crime scenes to be completeley free of fingerprints. The thing is if this fingerprint does turn out not to belong to DArlie then it will add tremendous weight to her innocence as it will mean that there was definatley someone else in that house.

 

[whitywendy]

A fingerprint in blood id not 'a little thing' especially if it turns out that it is not Darlies. Just because there is only one fingerprint in blood does not make it unlikely, it is not unheard of for crime scenes to be completeley free of fingerprints. The thing is if this fingerprint does turn out not to belong to DArlie then it will add tremendous weight to her innocence as it will mean that there was definatley someone else in that house.

Agree. I believe there isn't enough "points" to distinguish or test/what ever you call it (just a working mama here). But I don't understand considering the horrific crime, that this particular print, where is was found and all, how it can be "brushed aside" as if unimportant. This is the only piece of evidence that makes me second guess myself occasionally. Still believe she's guilty, just wish there was a better explanation for this print.:waitasec:

 

[Mountaineer]

Nicola - I have read all of your posts - and I did not mean to imply that is the only reason you believe she is innocent. I was speaking in general terms at that point - not directly at you. Sorry about the confusion.

As far as a lot of crime scenes not having any fingerprints - I think you will find that mostly happens in crimes that are planned out - and where there is ample time to "clean up" the crime scene. This attack was fast and furious - and an intruder (who just brutally murdered 2 boys yet left the adult alive) would not have had time to clean up any other prints he would have left.

One can assume, if there were an intruder, that he wasn't wearing gloves if he left this 1 partial print - so where are the other prints?

 

[CyberLaw]

After reading enough crime stores, I refuse to speculate why people do what they do, what does on in their minds, their justification, their reasoning, their motives.

Because unless a person states in public, or the DA finds a "theory" as to why, it is all speculation.

Only Darlie knows why, from Darlie's history, her mental state, her reasoning. You cannot put a "reason" why people do terrible things.

No one can get inside Darlie's mind, and if you did, it would be a lame motive anyways.

 

[JMO8778]

true,and I hear ppl say, for instance,they dont want to understand it when things like Columbine and this happen..but the thing is,someone needs to understand it,b/c if we can understand it,then maybe we can help prevent it from happening again.

 

[Dena]

Agree. I believe there isn't enough "points" to distinguish or test/what ever you call it (just a working mama here). But I don't understand considering the horrific crime, that this particular print, where is was found and all, how it can be "brushed aside" as if unimportant. This is the only piece of evidence that makes me second guess myself occasionally. Still believe she's guilty, just wish there was a better explanation for this print.:waitasec:

What I mean by that is that this is one fingerprint, only one. IMO, it is Darlie's fingerprint, and I bet you she knows this, she's just playing the game. Now if it was determined to not be Darlie's, then I would consider it to be a bigger deal. JMO.

 

[whitywendy]

true,and I hear ppl say, for instance,they dont want to understand it when things like Columbine and this happen..but the thing is,someone needs to understand it,b/c if we can understand it,then maybe we can help prevent it from happening again.

EXACTLY!!!!

 

[Mary456]

Barbara Davies is NOT the sole reason that I believe in Darlies innocence, (as I stated), if you read all of my post you would know this. What I was trying to say is that she had sat through the trial everyday and she belived wholeheartedly in Darlies guilt until, she saw all evidence. I stated myself that it could be a publicity stunt.

A publicity stunt is exactly what it was, Nicola, and it backfired on her big time. Babs says she changed her mind because she didn't see photos of Darlie's bruises - implying that the State withheld evidence - but that is not true. Those photos were shown to the jury and were even available during courtroom breaks for the media, including Barbara, to examine (it's in the transcript).

Furthermore, Barbara Davis described those bruises in graphic detail in her book. She is not to be trusted.

 

[mollymalone]

After reading enough crime stores, I refuse to speculate why people do what they do, what does on in their minds, their justification, their reasoning, their motives.

Because unless a person states in public, or the DA finds a "theory" as to why, it is all speculation.

Only Darlie knows why, from Darlie's history, her mental state, her reasoning. You cannot put a "reason" why people do terrible things.

No one can get inside Darlie's mind, and if you did, it would be a lame motive anyways.

True. I always thought that Darlie may have had a "lame" motive. She and Darin had been arguing off and on about money and he seemed to be getting fed up with her, hence another fight that night.

Darlie loves to be the center of attention.

So let's say Darlie been threatening divorce, knowing Darin will say honey please stay etc.. and that makes her feel in control. But just suppose previous to that night, and even on that night he tells her go ahead, divorce me I've had enough. Darlie, to keep his attention on HER, decides to murder the children so that he'll again focus on HER as a victim of a horrendous crime and she'll be in control again.

Other people have committed murder for that type of reason, and some have killed simply to hurt the other person by killing the pets/people he or she loves the most.